Comparing Chiefs' Dorsey and Nebraska's Suh
by Joel Thorman on Feb 19, 2010 3:24 PM CST
in 2010 Kansas City Chiefs Draft
Email
PrintFormer NFL scout Daniel Jeremiah recently compared Kansas City Chiefs DE Glenn Dorsey and Nebraska DT Ndamukong Suh.
There are a few non-physical similarities -- mainly that they're both arguably the highest rated defensive tackle in their draft and were both dominant in the college ranks.
Jeremiah was questioned if Suh will be downgraded because Dorsey hasn't lived up to the billing (so far). Both were coached by Bo Pelini.
You can read Jeremiah's analysis here. He goes over body types (Suh is bigger with less fat), durability (Dorsey has concerns about his leg and conditioning), versatility (Suh can play in a 3-4 or 4-3) and raw power (Suh has more strength, Dorsey relied in quickness).
"There aren't sure things when it comes to the draft" Jeremiah writes, "but I feel as comfortable with Suh as I have with any player to come out in the last 5 years."
Sounds exactly like what they said about Dorsey coming out.
(H/T Holmeslice)
65 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I don't know about you, but
I feel very good about Dorsey. He was the MVP of our D-Line last year and was still improving as the year went on. I look for big things from him this year.
by VermeilLikesToCry on Feb 19, 2010 3:29 PM CST reply actions
agreed
* KC now has the best coaching staff in the league
* Pioli will make at least one trade in the offseason, and 2 trades during the draft
* I'd prefer "lightning and lightning" as opposed to "lightning and thunder" when it comes to RBs
* 9-7 is a real possibility in 2010 IF the Chiefs get 4 new starters
Agreed also, but we need a NT
The Powers Of Astute Observation Are Often Mistaken As Cynacism By Those That Do Not Posses Them -- G.B. Shaw
How would he know Suh can play in a 3-4?
That’s a dumb argument.
Because Suh was double teamed all year long by almost every team Nebraska played...
….AND even under the pressure of a double team STILL managed to penetrate the backfield, wreak havoc in the run game, pressure the hell out of the QB, knock down passes, and get sacks.
Facing off against the double team on almost every down is pretty damn close to playing 3-4 style ball. It’s 2 gap instead of 1 gap in the 3-4, but Suh has the moves (notice thats plural – he’s not a one trick pony) to pick his gap and not only occupy, but dominate 2 defenders and still get into the backfiled.
Wilfork will be tagged. The tag will only cost $7 mil a season for a DT (he’s not a DE who’s tag will cost $15 mil). There is no way that the Pats let a relatively young guy that is as good as he is at his position get away from them this offseason. If someone wants Wilfork bad enough they are going to have to pay draft picks for him. With the extra tags in te final league year you can count on Wilfork being tagged.
The Chiefs biggest need (IMO and many others) is someone that can play 2 gaps, take on the douoble team, and still penetrate the O Line. — Many won’t agree with me here, but I’d be willing to trade UP to take Suh to anchor the defense at NT if we can’t get someone better than Edwards in free agency. I have that much confidence that Suh, 2 years from now, will be dominate in the NFL.
Lots of people would take him as a 4-3 DT or 34DE, but I’d go the extra mile and say that he can play the NT at 310lbs. he can be for the Chiefs what Dallas has in the middle of their D, only better.
The Powers Of Astute Observation Are Often Mistaken As Cynacism By Those That Do Not Posses Them -- G.B. Shaw
I'm with you, Tex
I think Suh could possibly play NT, at a smaller size like Ratliff
I saw Suh in an interview describe his role at Nebraska…
“my job was to tie up as many blockers as possible, and then still be able to make a play”
sounds like a Nose to me…
* KC now has the best coaching staff in the league
* Pioli will make at least one trade in the offseason, and 2 trades during the draft
* I'd prefer "lightning and lightning" as opposed to "lightning and thunder" when it comes to RBs
* 9-7 is a real possibility in 2010 IF the Chiefs get 4 new starters
I hate to keep pointing this out (kinda)
But Dallas doesn’t run a two-gap 3-4. The “Phillips” 3-4 is just an inverted 4-3 where the front 7 are all one-gappers.
by alakan81 on Feb 19, 2010 3:58 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Re: Dallas One-gap
Yup.
And we can’t just easily switch over to the Phillips 3-4 because then Tyson Jackson is out of place too (though, Dorsey might fare okay in that scheme).
yeah, that's the only hangup :)
* KC now has the best coaching staff in the league
* Pioli will make at least one trade in the offseason, and 2 trades during the draft
* I'd prefer "lightning and lightning" as opposed to "lightning and thunder" when it comes to RBs
* 9-7 is a real possibility in 2010 IF the Chiefs get 4 new starters
good.
Edwards couldnt handle 2 blockers at any time in 2009.
Doresy was the one taking on the double team and pluggin up the run.
When Dorsey went out injured our run D went from porous to non-existant.
I have no problem at all with our NT playing 1 gap against hte double team, and Dorsey being the one to play 2 gaps standing next to him. Suh can beat the double, and Dorsey can handle the double. Sounds like a plan to me.
Hell, take it further….. switch it up from play to play. Sometimes Suh and play 2 gaps while Dorsey concentrates on one gap and penetrates, and sometimes Dorsey can play 2 gaps and let Suh be the one gap penetrater. — That ought to throw a fucking loop in the O’s blocking scheme. — Make em try to figure out who’s gonna be comming to their gap from play to play.
The Powers Of Astute Observation Are Often Mistaken As Cynacism By Those That Do Not Posses Them -- G.B. Shaw
I like the sounds of that...
now, how do we get Suh to drop to the 5th pick?
* KC now has the best coaching staff in the league
* Pioli will make at least one trade in the offseason, and 2 trades during the draft
* I'd prefer "lightning and lightning" as opposed to "lightning and thunder" when it comes to RBs
* 9-7 is a real possibility in 2010 IF the Chiefs get 4 new starters
I'm sure you will see some of this
Whoever ends up playing nose tackle.
The only consideration is that, generally, all 3 d-lineman are responsible for two gaps. So, to stay sound in the run game, someone else has to cover the gap that Dorsey or whoever is one-gapping is not. That limits what you can do blitz and coverage-wise with your ILBs, who would most likely be the ones to fill the gap.
by alakan81 on Feb 19, 2010 5:29 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
not most likely, definitely.
When the NT (responcibile for 2 gaps) reads the play and decides to play the strong side gap the ILB is then responcibile for the weak side gap that the nose vacated, and vice versa. This is why a powerful ILB run stuffer is so valuable in the 34.
The Powers Of Astute Observation Are Often Mistaken As Cynacism By Those That Do Not Posses Them -- G.B. Shaw
I apologize if my word choice confused you
By “most likely” I meant “in almost every conceivable situation”.
Regardless of that, I was referring to when one of linemen is NOT playing two gaps, which is what I thought we were all talking about: Dorsey (or, hypothetically, Suh) one-gapping to penetrate and get in the backfield.
I doesnt matter if the NT/DE are playing 2 gap or not.
The ILB is responcible to cover the gaps that the DL leave free.
If your NT is paying 2 Gap, that doesn’t mean they literally have to stay back and eat both gaps 100% of the play. They are still trying to penetrate every single play. It means they are supposed to read the O’s blocking scheme and formation and choose which of the 2 gaps they are covering to fill. And they are expected to choose correctly. They fill that gap and then penetrate through it (fighting the double) to cause backfield havoc, collape the pocket, stuff the inside run, and disrupt the pass. The ILB is then responcible for the gap that the NT DIDN’T choose.
That was my point in my responce. I was vague, sorry.
What I’m trying to say is that it really would not matter if the NT was playing the 2 gap responcibility or the DE. The ILB would still have the responcibility of filling the Gap that they don’t.
Example.. If the NT is the 2 gapper and plays the strong side A, then the ILB must cover the weak side A. BUT, if the NT is a 1 gapper playing the Strong A, and the DE is the 2 gapper playing the Weak A and Weak B…and they choose the B… then the ILB would be responcible for the Weak A. If they choose the A then the ILB would be responcible for the Weak B. — It doens’t really make any difference who plays the 2 Gap responcibility. The ILB is responcibile for whatever gap isn’t filled.
Example.. If the NT is the 2 gapper and plays the strong side A, then the ILB must cover the weak side A. BUT, if the NT is a 1 gapper playing the Strong A, and the DE is the 2 gapper playing the Weak A and Weak B…and they choose the B… then the ILB would be responcible for the Weak A. If they choose the A then the ILB would be responcible for the Weak B. — It doens’t really make any difference who plays the 2 Gap responcibility. The ILB is responcibile for whatever gap isn’t filled.The OLB would have the C (outside protection, or in the case of a TE on that side of the field the OLB would have the D the ILB would have the C, the other ILB would take the opposite A that the NT plays and the safety would step up to control B).
Example.. If the NT is the 2 gapper and plays the strong side A, then the ILB must cover the weak side A. BUT, if the NT is a 1 gapper playing the Strong A, and the DE is the 2 gapper playing the Weak A and Weak B…and they choose the B… then the ILB would be responcible for the Weak A. If they choose the A then the ILB would be responcible for the Weak B. — It doens’t really make any difference who plays the 2 Gap responcibility. The ILB is responcibile for whatever gap isn’t filled.The OLB would have the C (outside protection, or in the case of a TE on that side of the field the OLB would have the D the ILB would have the C, the other ILB would take the opposite A that the NT plays and the safety would step up to control B).My point is…. the ILB always has the responcibility of playing the gap that the 2 gapper does not play. Changing which guy plays 2 gap role doesn’t really change anythiing.
The Powers Of Astute Observation Are Often Mistaken As Cynacism By Those That Do Not Posses Them -- G.B. Shaw
by Texas Chief on Feb 20, 2010 11:52 AM CST up reply actions
wow umm..
I swear i didn’t type that twice. WTF happened there?
AP is now automatically adding length to my posts???
The Powers Of Astute Observation Are Often Mistaken As Cynacism By Those That Do Not Posses Them -- G.B. Shaw
by Texas Chief on Feb 20, 2010 11:55 AM CST up reply actions
The way I understand the 3-4 (or at least the versions of it I have the greatest understanding of)
All three down linemen are responsible for two gaps on every play, unless there is some kind of variation in the play call, for example:
The defensive line shifts strong-side so Tyson Jackson is now in a 5-tech over the tackle or even out to a 6, depending on the formation. The nose shades to the center’s right shoulder or on out to a 1-tech. Both Jackson and the nose are playing two gaps. Dorsey squeezes into a 3-tech and is only playing one gap.
A couple of things could happen with this. Either the weak-side ILB behind Dorsey has to cover the gap Dorsey vacates or Tamba Hali squeezes inside and plays as a defensive end, leaving the weak-side ILB to contain outside and the strong-side ILB to play the middle. So you’re basically shifting into a 4-3 front, but you’re still looking for the nose and Tyson Jackson to two-gap to keep your linebackers free to get to the ball.
Anyway, like I said, the way I understand the term “playing two gaps”, against the run anyway, it DOES mean that the lineman is responsible for occupying both lanes. So if the nose tackle is covering both A gaps, he has to sit down against the double team, find the ball, and read where the play is going. If the ball is coming to either A gap, he has to work towards the ball carrier and either plug the hole up so the runner is hemmed in, has to redirect, and is most likely tackled, or make the tackle himself.
This is way I’ve seen it run.
Let's put it this way
If my choise is to give up a 2 seconds or a 2nd and a 3rd in order to get Wilfork out of NE… OR…. to give up the extra second to Move up and take Suh…..
I move up and take Suh 10 times out of 10.
The Powers Of Astute Observation Are Often Mistaken As Cynacism By Those That Do Not Posses Them -- G.B. Shaw
Suh will be playing in 5 years
Wilfork will not.
Ryan Succop will be the kicker for the AFC in the 2011 Pro Bowl
Ted Washington played until he was like 38 i believe at damn near 400 lbs.
The first 3 picks of the draft will be defense. Pioli loves him some defense.
by ChiefsfanJon on Feb 20, 2010 12:49 AM CST up reply actions
Definitely the exception
Jamal Williams is declining at 33.
Ryan Succop will be the kicker for the AFC in the 2011 Pro Bowl
adding the 2nd and our 1st could prbably gets us to 3rd pick
maybe 2nd. But I do like the plan cause Wilfork would cost us at Minimum 2 2nds
"For what we are about to see next, we must enter quietly into the realm of genius." Scott "Young Frankenstein" Pioli
by Steve_Chiefs on Feb 19, 2010 4:46 PM CST up reply actions
Would you...
trade Dorsey to Detroit for a swap in the 1st and an Detroits 2nd rounder? I would.
Suh
K Wilson (CB/PR, Boise St)
Pouncey (C, Florida)
Shipley (SR/PR, Texas)
Troup (NT, UCF)
M Johnson (G, Alabama) – DJ trade
I don’t about NT being filled, but our offensive line would be at least stable and Cassel would have a great 3rd down option in Shipley. We get Suh who does what Seymour did in NE early in his career. Wilson would give us the best young CB tandum in the league next to Cinci and Miami. Plus, we would be deep at PR, which was our most inept position last year without a doubt.
by I_Bleed_Red. on Feb 19, 2010 6:35 PM CST up reply actions
No
I don’t want to give up Dorsey period.
And I don’t see CB as an immediate need.
I’m also not really fond of Shipley.
And the whole point of shoring up the ILB spot with a run stuffer/pass rusher is so that you can put your most gifted playmaker on the field full time (DJ).
You’re proposing trading away our best D lineman, and most gifted playmaker out of the front 7 of the defense so that we can add ?? Troup as the NT? and do what with the DE spot Dorsey vacates— McGee? You also haven’t addressed our glaring need at ILB and i don’t see any safety help up the middle in your senario.
You just made us weaker against the shallow pass, and took away our playmaker and replaced him with nobody. Not to mention that you didn’t address the ILB spot.
I have complete faith in Haley’s ability to work with Chambers, Bowe, Cooper, and Pope in the pass game. Especially with an O-Coordinator as gifted as Weis. I love the addition of Crennel, and the last thing I want to do is take awy the 2 best players we have on the field.
Draft players……develop your drafted players…..trade away/release your older players = good
Draft players……develop your drafted players……trade away your newly developed drafted players and keep the old guys = bad.
If you want to trade some people for picks….trade Brian Waters.
I do like that you went after a center and a guard though, instead of trying to fix the center position by drafting a tackle.
The Powers Of Astute Observation Are Often Mistaken As Cynacism By Those That Do Not Posses Them -- G.B. Shaw
ok wait.. I take some of that back
You wanna line up the D with Suh…..Troup….Jackson….
Vrabel…..D. Williams……Mays……Hali ??
The only problems I see there are Williams, Mays, and Troup. Heh… but thats all =P
The Powers Of Astute Observation Are Often Mistaken As Cynacism By Those That Do Not Posses Them -- G.B. Shaw
Well...
I was thinking we could sign K Dansby in free agency and give up 2011 draft picks for Wilfork. Also, I think we could get some steals in rounds 4 and 5 concerning our situation at S, ILB, and RLB. Guys like Myron Rolle (SS, Florida St), Pat Angerer (ILB, Iowa), Eric Norwood (RLB, South Car.), George Selvie (RLB, USF). There are also other good offensive lineman like Beadles (OT/G, Utah). Thats why I think we need to get as many 4th and 5th rounds as possible by moving DJ, Paige, and Waters. By the way CB maybe isn’t an immediate need, but if Kyle Wilson falls to us at the top of the 2nd I am pulling that trigger in a heartbeat. The kid has what it takes between the ears to be an NFL star.
by I_Bleed_Red. on Feb 20, 2010 10:23 AM CST up reply actions
My Dream Roster
DJ for 3rd
Paige + Waters for 4th
Dorsey to Detroit for swap in 1st and their 2nd
QB – Cassel
RB – Charles, S Johnson (5c)
FB – Castille
Split WR – A Boldin (T 2011 1st)
Slot – Shipley (pick 2c)
Flank – Bowe
TE – Rotation of Pope, Cottam, O’Connell [maybe Moeaki (TE, Iowa) late]
LT – Albert
LG – Beadles (5a)
C – Pouncey (2b)
RG – M Johnson (3b)
RT – O’Callaghan/C Brown (competition)
RDE – Suh, Magee
NT – Wilfork (T 2011 2nd & 3rd), Troup (3c)
LDE – Jackson, Gilberry
ROLB – Hali
RILB – K Dansby (FA)
LILB – Angerer (4b)
LOLB – Vrabel/Studebaker/Banta-Cain/Selvie (5b) ????
CB – Wilson (2a)
CB – Flowers
NB – Washington
DB – Carr
SS – Rolle (4a)
FS – Morgan
K – Succop
P – Colquitt
LS – Anyone but Gafford (undrafted free agent)
KR – Shipley
PR – Wilson
G – Copper (resigned)/Osgood (FA)/McGraw
*Rookies like Angerer, Beadles, and Rolle probably wouldn’t start right away, but we have decent stop-gaps in Mays, W Smith (resigned), and M Brown (resigned). I don’t know what to do about a pass rusher opposite of Hali.
by I_Bleed_Red. on Feb 20, 2010 1:41 PM CST up reply actions
No, we want to build on strength not trade it away
Pioli took Jackson and then Magee. With Dorsey stepping up we have solid depth at 3-4 DE now we need that at NT. FA and draft pick. or draft pick and 2011 draft pick.
Obviously WR’s are a dime a dozen just like RB’s. Defensive lineman are not :)
"For what we are about to see next, we must enter quietly into the realm of genius." Scott "Young Frankenstein" Pioli
by Steve_Chiefs on Feb 19, 2010 8:22 PM CST up reply actions
Meh
Suh dominated at a playing weight of 291. Not a rookie I want to put in at NT in the NFL thank you very much. The goal is to start winning. Haley experimented enough with his roster in 2009. I’m over it! Stop the madness. I’d rather see them take McClain than I would Suh.
Braccae illae virides cum subucula rosea et tunica Caledonia-quam elenganter concinnatur!
Read closer Buck
I said….IF we don’t address NT in FA….
I also said….I’d RATHER trade up and give up a 2nd or a 3rd for Suh, than to pay 2 2nds for Wilfork.
I’m all about Rolondo McClain, but without a NT we will have not addressed the bigget need on the entire roster.
The Powers Of Astute Observation Are Often Mistaken As Cynacism By Those That Do Not Posses Them -- G.B. Shaw
Fair enough
I’ve spent the last month fighting on the side of the “Don’t draft Suh to play NT” argument. It’s made me a bit punchy. Gotta itchy trigger finger.
I think the Chiefs have enough money at their disposal to land one or two of the NT prospects in FA and the draft
Braccae illae virides cum subucula rosea et tunica Caledonia-quam elenganter concinnatur!
it's not the money that's the issue Buck
It’s the draft picks.
We’re a terribel team that needs every draft pick we can possibly get to fill allthe holes on our roster.
More and more teams are changing to the 3-4 defense and that means more and more people that need a true NT.
Just like the 4-3 cover 2 that was so popular— when everyone NEEDED that perfect MLB that could cover hash the hash and 15 yardds deep in pass coverage agaisnt slots and TE’s AND also be an effective run stuffing QB pressuring, pcoket collapsing beast… (the 4-3 cover 2 lives and dies by pressure from the front 4 and an absolute STUD at MLB) - the 34 has a position that is a must ahve…. the NT.
The Franchise Tag pay compensation for a NT like Wilfork is $7mil a season. That’s not a very big number. A team with a NT that doen’t want to lose them can tag their NT and only have to pay out $7mil for them next season. That’s not “cheap”, but its nothing like the $15 mil for a DE, or the (i THINK this numbner is right: $12 mil) for an OL. Gaurenteeing your NT $7mil is pennies nect to some other positions tag values, so there realy isnt much down side.
Tag your NT as the franchise player and you get to slap the 2 first round pick, or 1 first and 1 second, compensation on them. Now a team that wants them has to be willing to match or beat the $7mil AND pay out the draft pick compensation.
It’s Clarks money, I really don’t care about the $$$ for a NT with a frenchise tag. It’s the draft picks that are too high of a price to give up.
The Powers Of Astute Observation Are Often Mistaken As Cynacism By Those That Do Not Posses Them -- G.B. Shaw
by Texas Chief on Feb 20, 2010 12:06 PM CST up reply actions
True and I guess I should clarify
Money IS the issue to the individual player (didn’t mean that it was for the organization) and it’s obvious the Chiefs are flush with it. My preference is this. Troll FA to find a solid veteran NT. Use the money to spend on a guy who can come in and provide solid veteran play for a few years. At the same time, draft a higher round NT prospect to develop behind said veteran. This way we’re addressing an URGENT positional need while allowing a young guy time needed to develop the rhythm, timing and conditioning needed in the NFL. It will also provide the team with the vital depth necessary to remain competitive down after down.
Braccae illae virides cum subucula rosea et tunica Caledonia-quam elenganter concinnatur!
I do agree that burning high draft picks on Wilfork is dumb
There are options out there that make sense.
Braccae illae virides cum subucula rosea et tunica Caledonia-quam elenganter concinnatur!
I agree. There's no doubt Suh is a (potentially) dominant player
And he certainly looks like a guy that would transition well to 3-4 DE who could slide inside on 3rd Downs.
But I don’t think, even with his physical strength, you can ignore the simple physics of a guy that is under 300 playing NT in the NFL against guards and centers that are generally 300+ and tend to be fairly strong themselves.
And I don’t see bulking him up the 30+ lbs it would take to make him more of an anchor as the most effective use of his skill set. I could certainly be wrong on either count.
Weight is not the only factor
Strength is the important thing…if Suh can weigh 300 but is ridiculously strong (which he seems to be), he could hold his own against heavier linemen.
Ryan Succop will be the kicker for the AFC in the 2011 Pro Bowl
by PVChiefsfan on Feb 19, 2010 11:03 PM CST up reply actions
No, it is not.
I said in my previous comment that I thought, regardless of his physical strength, he would struggle to sit down and anchor against NFL guards and centers.
I also said I could be wrong, but there isn’t a great deal of precedent for fellas under 320 playing the 3-4 nose in the last several years. One I can think of is Kelly Gregg in Baltimore, who is 315, but is also only 6 feet tall, so he’s a real stout built guy.
I will say that one other thing that plays to Suh’s advantage as far as switching to a 3-4 nose is his skill in using his hands to keep himself shielded from getting driven back or turned out of the play. If he can bulk up, then he certainly has potential in that role.
Okay too much drink going on
1. I am sure that Gregg is taller than 6’
2. Buck agrees that Suh can play NT for a 2nd and a 3rd
3. Tex would trade a 2nd and a 3rd for Suh
4. Wilfork is NOT worth 2 2nd round picks according to Tex and Buck
5. We have to have a NT in FA notwithstanding points 3 and 4
6. PVC is alright with Suh at NT cause he is extraordinarily strong
"For what we are about to see next, we must enter quietly into the realm of genius." Scott "Young Frankenstein" Pioli
by Steve_Chiefs on Feb 20, 2010 2:05 AM CST up reply actions
Well, Kelly better call his agent
Cuz they’re short-changing him on the roster sheet. He’s listed at 6’ and to look at him I’d say that’s accurate.
by alakan81 on Feb 20, 2010 2:11 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
Truer words were never spoken
“There aren’t sure things when it comes to the draft”
If we were looking at Suh as a NT
I suppose there is a chance he could fall to us.
I don’t know if they’ll do it, but really the Rams need a QB.
The SMART move by the Lions would be a LT.
McCoy fits TB’s defense better, since they need a quick, penetrating 3-tech DT.
Washington has eleventy billion dollars tied up in Haynesworth, and should probably go LT anyway.
Jackson, Suh, Dorsey…that’s a scary d-line.
Ryan Succop will be the kicker for the AFC in the 2011 Pro Bowl
Remember that before the 2008 draft
everyone was SURE Dorsey would go #1 or #2..
Ryan Succop will be the kicker for the AFC in the 2011 Pro Bowl
You never know
Funny things happen leading up to the draft.
FA will likely change most teams draft needs. Including ours.
good points
* KC now has the best coaching staff in the league
* Pioli will make at least one trade in the offseason, and 2 trades during the draft
* I'd prefer "lightning and lightning" as opposed to "lightning and thunder" when it comes to RBs
* 9-7 is a real possibility in 2010 IF the Chiefs get 4 new starters
Suh is more powerful...
I live in Omaha, NE and have been to a fair share of huskers games and watching suh was like watching a man against boys. This guy throws around the opposition like rag dolls. Just ask Colt McCoy…
well NFL O-Lineman arent rag dolls
and he will get his fair share of men with neck beards and ample arm hair to battle with
Regardless of who the Chiefs pick at #5 overall, Whitlock will call it the worst pick in the history of the Chiefs. Heres to hoping that #5 pick runs Whitlock out of town.....
The difference between the two is..
that Dorsey played a quick undersized DT ala Warren Sapp who relied on that quickness to get to the QB. Suh relies much more on brute strength while achieving similar results and could be successful at a 3-4 DE because of his prototypical size and he would have the strength to take up blockers where frankly we are just wasting Dorsey’s talent when he should have been the next Warren Sapp in a 4-3.
Sapp also had the brute strength to play NT. Hated it, but did it very very well.
I think Suh would definitely upgrade the d-line. Dorsey would be better as an under-tackle in someone’s 4-3. Suh would probably play 3-4 DE with more power than Dorsey, and close to the same level of athleticism.
I’m dubious of any trade-ups in the offing for KC. More likely hope that there’s QB lust, as others have said, and trade down.
A trade with Detroit involving Dorsey isn’t out of the question, but I’d bet that KC makes more headway by keeping Dorsey and adding talent elsewhere.
He says
that Dorsey had more body fat heading into the league. But, he also dropped somewhere between 40-50 lbs over the last offseason. He said that Dorsey is primarily a 4-3 DT, which is sort of true, but he did play in a 3-4 and show some pretty noticeable improvement. He freed up Hali to make plays and improved his run stopping from the year before.
I hope we hang on to Dorsey because even if he is not utilized in the best possible way I do believe he has a chance to be a pretty good d-lineman for us because we know Crennel primarily runs a 3-4 but is not afraid to give different looks, ie find a way to utilize the players natural abilities.
home, of the....CHIEEEEEFS!
by Holmeslice on Feb 19, 2010 4:26 PM CST reply actions 2 recs
well said, rec!
* KC now has the best coaching staff in the league
* Pioli will make at least one trade in the offseason, and 2 trades during the draft
* I'd prefer "lightning and lightning" as opposed to "lightning and thunder" when it comes to RBs
* 9-7 is a real possibility in 2010 IF the Chiefs get 4 new starters
Yeah
I mean you wouldn’t put Warren Sapp at 3-4 DE, would you? That’s basically what we’re doing now. The reason Dorsey was drafted so high was his quickness and ability to get to the QB from the DT position. It might make sense to trade him to Detroit for their 2nd rounder and draft Jared Odrick from Penn State. This guys is 6’5’’ and is projected to be even a better prospect than T-Jack coming out of college and I think we could get him in the early 2nd.
hell for that matter pick up alex carrington at 6’5" 285 in the 4th or 5th as a value pick… sun belt guy… but he has all the skills needed to be successful in our defense…
feb draft wish 1.3:
1. eric berry fs
2. sergio kindle olb
2. brandon spikes ilb
3. jd walton oc
4. torell troup nt
5. jacoby ford wr
5. joique bell rb
5. myron rolle ss
i agree with all sides
I think Dorsey would be more dominant in his natural 43 dt position, but
That doesn’t mean he can’t or won’t become a very good 34 de, and
I believe that crennel will put guys in positions to be successful.
If suh falls to us at 5, I think there is no doubt that we would take him.
The problem is what kind of offers we could get for Dorsey. Here’s an idea I threw out once before and i’d like to know some thoughts. This is not what I want, just a scenario.
If we traded Dorsey and got suh. Then draft Cody as our 2 down nt against the run. Then slide suh to nt on passing downs and bring in gillberry or magee to rush from the de spot
by BJ Kissel on Feb 19, 2010 4:54 PM CST via mobile reply actions
just a scheme question
Not trying to determine picks and such. But would this be a good scenario IYO
by BJ Kissel on Feb 19, 2010 4:57 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Dorsey is fine where he is
First off, he did better this year as a 3-4 DE than in 2008 as a 4-3 DT.
Second, the way we use Hali (almost always rushing and occupying the LT), Dorsey’s responsibilities aren’t always that different than before. As others have already pointed out, depending on how you play the 3-4, it can be pretty much the same as some implementations of the 4-3… only difference is whether Hali puts his hand on the ground or not. Yes, yes, I know there are often various differences in technique and responsibilities, but that totally depends on the coach, and frankly, we don’t even know what exactly Crennel will do next year.
If Dorsey struggles in 2010, then you can say we’re wasting him. But as far as I see, hes just getting better so far.
by VermeilLikesToCry on Feb 19, 2010 5:01 PM CST reply actions
I would love to have Suh, but many fair weather complainers couldnt take it.
For Suh to come in and play NT? Expectations would be through the roof, not just for him, but for the whole line. We would have one of the most expensive D lines with only 3 ppl. The cry babies would be here next year saying Suh is a bust because he couldnt dominate NFL players his first 2 years. He is a monster in college, but he will not likely be a monster right off in the NFL. I think that there is a definately a chance he could fall. Frankly, none of the teams ahead of us need him like we do. I could potentially see all of them going in a different direction. Dorsey, Suh, and T Jack would be the scariest line I could think of 3 yrs from now. If The top brass believe that he can play nose, and he is there, we will get him.
If the Chiefs added one of the better 'tweener OLB/DEs on the OLB side of 'tween in the 2nd,
But still bigger and stronger than Studebaker/Vrabel, there’s a base 5-man rush that pretty much squashes everything between the hashes on the offense’s side of the LOS. With that as main “vanilla” threat, it’d be pretty easy to mix things up out of that single personnel grouping.
Suh in the middle would make it a very powerful and flexible front 5. Jackson/Dorsey/Suh could line up in any of 4 spots, in 4-3 (more likely 4-2 (more fatties up front, more speed behind)) alignments. You may scoff, but all 3 of Dorsey, Suh, Jackson are athletic enough to drop back in zone on the changeup “What the hell just hit us?” blitz. I’m pretty confident that Crennel and Pleasant will be willing and able to install those kinds of changeups, and, to Clancy’s credit, he had those guys pointed in that direction, although he’ll never get credit for it, although I saw clear indications of these sorts of things in his thinking, regardless of the fact that much of it was kept very simple, with compromises made for lack of stout at the nose, and inexperience (in the scheme) in ALL defensive position groups.
As stagdsp and I discussed pre-season, the Flowers, Page, Carr plus whomever could probably do a helluva job playing aggressive zone, if they could rely on the sack or the early pass being forced out (like Porter-vs-Manning for the win). Still would like to see more ability to man up, because I want the D to have maximum flexibility. Not quite there, yet at DL and not quite there in DBs. Top-shelf LBs are still icing on an unfinished cake.
waste of conversation...
if suh doesnt go #1then he goes #2 to detroit or #3 to tb! the dude will not drop passed #3. The conversation should be, do we draft Mccoy if he is available which is a possibility. Easy answer-no.
Mr J
KC Chiefs Fan
You never...
know what can happen. The Chiefs might trade up.
by I_Bleed_Red. on Feb 20, 2010 12:33 PM CST up reply actions
It's all a moot point.
Because Suh won’t be available at five. And we need more draft picks, not fewer.
by BetterRedThanDead on Feb 20, 2010 12:36 PM CST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
